Brian M. Scott wrote:

On Thu, 1 May 2008 16:19:40 -0700 (PDT), Marc
marc.adler@gmail.com> wrote in
news:9793a83e-6c0a-4a2c-946c-80d1cbb4398d@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com
in sci.lang:

So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then?

I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
surprising.

Another example seems to be the Russian name
transliterated as "Fyodor"; it comes from the Greek
Theodore.

On May 2, 12:31 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
Patrick Karl <jpk...@gmail.com> wrote:
Brian M. Scott wrote:
Marc > >> <marc.ad...@gmail.com> wrote:

So no one knows where this pronunciation comes from, then?

I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
surprising.

Another example seems to be the Russian name
transliterated as "Fyodor"; it comes from the Greek
Theodore.

And quite a few others of this type, now that you mention
it, among them <Feofan> (masc.) and <Feofana> ~ <Feofanija
(fem.), <Feofilakt>, <Feofil>, and <Feodosija>, all of which
have been used.

Not to mention "arifmetika" and "orfografiya", though most commonly
Russian seems to reflect Gk /th/ as /t/: aptekar', matematika,
teodolit, etc.

Marc skreiv:

[...]

Or the "us" for "me" thing either?

Isn't that a normal thing everywhere? A polite inclusive or something?

In Norwegian it's been mocked as a "royal we" or a "me and my worm" --
and I think it used to be more widespread earlier. I think I use it in
simple expressions like 'la oss se' "let us (me) see", and to add
emphasis to pronouncements of some (quasi-)monumentality: 'Vi får vel
komme oss av gårde' "We (I) should be going", 'Vi fikk vel som
fortjent' "We (I) must have got what we (I) deserved".

"Marc" <marc.adler@gmail.com> wrote...

Why do the Brits use "us" instead of "me" in informal speech? ("Give
us a go" = "Let me have a turn.") Are there any historical reasons?

This may have something to do with the Monarchy and how
a Monarch speaks using the plural form.

So, if you wish to put on airs about yourself and place
a great importance upon your person, then you would
use "us" and "we" instead of "me" and "I."

Usually, when someone wants to step in after having
watched a fool try numerous times to accomplish something,
one might step up to the plate and say, "Let us have a go."
It is used in a teasing manner to indicate one's superiority.

Ditto "f" for "th" (especially in London).

Did you notice this mostly used among younger people...age
30 and under? If you've mostly noticed it for the under 20
crowd, it may be baby-talk assumed on purpose to irritate
the older crowd. If you noticed it used mostly by young
women, it may be their way of demonstrating a kind of
immature helplessness.

On May 1, 6:41 pm, "Brian M. Scott" <b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

I don't think that it 'comes from' anywhere. It's an easily
demonstrated fact that [f] and [T] sound very similar (e.g.,
check the Google archives for Peter's café/Cathay story),
and cross-linguistically [T] is, I believe, relatively
uncommon; substitution of [f] is therefore hardly very
surprising.

[f] and [T] may be similar-sounding, but going from
"similar-sounding" to allophonic is a pretty big leap.

[m] and [n] are also similar-sounding.

Wouldn't you be surprised to hear someone say [nemi] for
"many"?

What I'm asking about is whether there is evidence of,
say, some Scandinavian tribe settled in the region where
[T] is realized as [f], which indeed didn't have [T] as
part of their phonemic stock, and therefore (like the
Russians with Greek), used [f] for [T].

Just saying "well, they sound real similar" doesn't
explain anything.

"Marc" <marc.adler@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:89333e7b-1be2-42f9-abe4-6a3fc6216792@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 9:33 pm, "ranjit_math...@yahoo.com"
ranjit_math...@yahoo.com> wrote:

What does "we" mean in "what do we have here"?

Well, it's "we" as in "me" and "you" - you're holding/doing something,
and I come upon this situation.

"Give us a go" is different - it's "me instead of you."

In every context? I find it difficult to imagine that anyone
pronounces mythical as miffickle.

Marc wrote:
That's an interesting point (and reminds me of Clive Holes' discussion
of dialectal realization of MSA words/phrases in his fantastic book
"Arabic - Structures, Functions, and Varieties"), and while "mythical"
might actually become "miffickle," I think a higher-register example
would serve you better - say, "theological." I don't think they'd say
"feological." But who knows.